Fox news is the most biased, manipulative and corrupted news channel out there. Matter in fact, FNC has such a bad reputation that even FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) and Media Matters has deemed them to be the most biased name in news. http://www.fair.org...

The president of the FNC is none other than Roger Ailes who severed as a political consultant for man republican candidates during the 1960's, 70's, and 80's including Richard M. Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Roger was placed in charge of Fox by a very conservative man by the name of Rupert Murdoch who had a child like love for Ronald Reagan. But enough with the background information, let me show you some of the overwhelming physical evidence of Fox News's countless tyranny of providing unfair and unbalanced news to the American people.

http://www.newsweek.com...
-In this article Newsweek makes a small review of Fox's textbook biasness. Ranging from Fox's 2 on 1 strategy on the factor by matching up Oreilly with another conservative against the always Faux-Liberal Alan Colmes. Whom 99% of the time will cower in the corner in pity never mentioning a thing when being scolded by the prick of an anchor Bill O'reilly.

http://www.newshounds.us...
- As shown in this article, newshounds points out the most common tactic FNC uses when manipulating its viewers, the bullying tactic. You see every single Fox anchor has a boiling point for when they interview people. Naturally you figure that its just human to get angry when somebody tarnishes your viewpoint. However these beloved and sacred values each anchor has are ALL THE SAME. Meaning if a "liberal" guest on the show makes an accusation that would ither hurt or question the GOP's reputation; you will begin to see sparks fly amongst the anchors eyes. Granted in this example, a substitute was the one spitting the ad-hominids this time by usually those who aware of fox know the kings of this bully tactic would be Hannity and Oreilly. Sean Hannity like the majority of Fox anchors usually bullies the interviewee by asking loaded questions and keeping a less hostile approach.. Oreilly on the other hand isn't exactly afraid of getting his hands dirty. And by this, you will frequently see his hand gestures, his absurd accusations and his always great comparisons. (Like the time he compared gays to Al-qaeda...yeah that actually happened)

In conclusion, I would like to just summarize the true evil aspect of this whole situation.. You see Fox "news", isn't really news. It's propaganda. And not even Conservative Propaganda, nope. It's Republican propaganda. And the reason I want to make the distinction is because I think it's important to recognize how Fox news really has well...raped conservatism.. Because Fox publicizes whatever the GOP spits out, by this transforming the ideal platforms of conservatism. The same goes for Msnbc, they do not represent liberalism, they represent the DNC and whatever they spit out. And by doing this compromising the ideals of true liberalism.
The whole point of my little speech here is that we should recognize how horrible these news channels are. Knowing this when a neo-con comes on to take on my argument I do not want a bull-blank argument about liberal media bias. This argument is about Fox News, prove me wrong.

The only reliable way to accurately assess bias in media is to use objective scientific methods impartially applied. Pro cites what amounts to blog opinion, with no pretense to scientific methodology.

An objective study requires an objective methodology that relates news coverage to positions on issues. UCLA released such a study at the end of 2005. http://tinyurl.com... They defined "liberal" in accordance with the Americans for Democratic Action scoring of issues. The ADA rates Congress people on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being perfectly liberal. The average ADA score, weighing districts by population, is 50.1 I will note that in 2005 congress was considerably to the left of center, so the comparison is to a left-of-center center. Nonetheless, the study is objective relative to the center of Congress. The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias or the appearance of bias in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research. Keep in mind that editorial pages are not included in the study, only news reporting. The New York Times editorial page is not pulling their score to the left, and the Wall Street Journal's editorials are not pulling them right. Bill Moyers is not counted on PBS, only Jim Lehrer. Lehrer, incidentally, came out with a good score as being unbiased.

Pro errs in confusing opinion with news reporting. Bill O'Reilly frequently disclaims the notion that he is trying to provide straight news. No one ought to care what the editorial pages of the New York Times or Fox News or any other outlet say, so long as the news reporting is unbiased. However, even in opinion matters, Fox is far less biased than, say, MSNBC. The principle MSNBC commentators, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow never have any dissenting voices on their shows. They pontificate unopposed, as Olbermann admits. http://tinyurl.com... O'Reilly is bombastic, but he entertains opposition. Professor Marc Hill, an avowed socialist, is a regular guest. http://tinyurl.com... Liberal PBS commentator Juan Williams is on the show frequently and does a good job of presenting the liberal position. Leftist Alan Colmes is a weekly guest. Rachel Maddow interviewed Democrat Joe Trippi, and the unthinkable happened, he disagreed with her. Flabbergasted, she immediately folded with "well, we'll just have to agree to disagree."

I'm not claiming that O'Riley is unbiased. He is under no obligation to be. However, he is considerably better than his counterparts on MSNBC., who never provide any opposing viewpoints. Unopposed is not fair.

Pro presents a string of his opinions unsupported by objective evidence. He sees "evil" all over Fox. Of course he does, but that is because he doesn't like what he is hearing. He did not cite a single lie or serious uncorrected error by Fox, he just doesn't like their attitude, or something. Pro makes an ad hom attack on Fox executives. The FAIR organization Pro references is self-professed as having a liberal agenda and wanting government sponsored media. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro also cites Newsweek, which even the BBC admits is a leftist mouthpiece. http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com...

Pro invites us to read other sources and make our own case. Nah.

Fox News has objectively-proved unbiased straight news reporting. They have right-of-center commentary, but Fox commentary regularly presents opposing views. Pro has the burden to prove that Fox is the "most biased, manipulative, and corrupt" outlet. Clearly MSNBC is far worse.

L, what kind of standards of proof are you using? I just searched the internet for every single mention of "The terror alert continues to affect the way Americans live their lives, both as consumers, participants in public events and citizens. Let's explain to viewers that while prudent precautions need to" and found no evidence. Every single time they either said they got it from Outfoxed, which isn't proof, or give no source.

TheAtheist, The earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job, and the earth was created 6000 years ago. All those claims are falsifiable. All are claimed to be true. You can go search the web ad make the case for those positions yourself. Right?

Nah. Debate is about marshaling the evidence and using it as part of a logical argument. It is not about proclaiming that you know the truth and then telling the other guy to prove your case.

theLwerd, There are at least two kinds of bias. One is the type of bias that leads the magazine "Cat Fancier" to avoid stories about dogs. Fox features stories of greater interest to conservatives than to liberals. We saw that, for example, in early coverage of the Tea Party movement. Fox covered it, while the liberal media either ignored it or dismissed it with "nobody showed up" stories.

It's also true that the commentary on Fox is weighted towards conservative viewpoints. For example, Fox actually features a vocal Libertarian (John Stossel). As far as I know, that's unique. However, Fox's hard news reporting is unbiased, and the scientific studies that have been done demonstrate that.

After Walter Cronkite retired he came out as a Liberal. Cronkite deserves much credit for doing a good job of concealing his own views when he was an active journalist. Now his opinion is no more than that of one more liberal journalist pining away at the loss of liberal domination of the news media.

Fox's commentary is considerably more balanced than MSNBC or CNN or PBS or the three broadcast networks, where conservative voices are either a tiny minority or virtually unknown. Fox is successful because there is spirited debate that includes strong left-wing opinions. There would be more liberals if they were willing to engage; many hide. Complaining that Fox is not perfectly balanced is a rationalization for disliking Fox. The real reason is that they are not part of the leftist elite that has long dominated.

I have no problem with a debate on this topic. I simply don't have the time to consistently research Roy's possible sources, along with gathering, organizing, and citing my own. The problem is the time limit on debate replies, and I might not be able to meet the 3-day obligation.

I stated that my claims can be substantiated, which is true. I'm not putting forth assertions for which there are no evidence; my statements can be falsified. Also, Van Jones isn't a Marxist, despite what Beck claims about him. Jones was *previously* associated with a Revolutionary Initiative Organization that incorporated *many* philosophies, such as feminism and internationalism -- not just Urban Marxism.

Although he rightfully apologized, the negative impact was already construed, and many of Beck's fans still feel that Obama dislikes "white culture". It was a delusional statement that was obviously derived from Beck's biased hatred for just about anyone on the left.

Well, it would appear that Media Matters has a lot in common with Fox News if that's the case. Quite ironic...

As for the evidence, just type Beck and Marxism into the Youtube search bar and you can watch all of the videos for yourself -- in full context.

The American people clearly dislike our health care bill. Do not mention it in your campaigning and instead use personal attacks on your Republican opponents. When asked to defend it, get out of the question by spouting positive rhetorical until you get a different question that you can actually answer. This would not include cap and trade, for it is also unpopular. So get out there and defend liberalism!